Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cooper Brannan

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cooper Brannan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails Wikipedia:MLB/N, Brannan played two years in the low Minor Leagues, and one year in an independant league. Adam Penale (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — --Adam Penale (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — --Adam Penale (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. —RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the subject of the article fails MLB/N & WP:SOLDIER, the subject of the article has been significantly covered by multiple reliable sources per WP:GNG, and therefore warrants inclusion. The article can clearly be improved, but irregardless the subject meets the notability criteria set forth in GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RightCowLeftCoast. In addition to the sources already in the article, there is also at least [1] and [2]. Rlendog (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no encyclopedic information in this article. It looks like a few facts about a non-notable individual. If he is actually notable, there should be something that makes this look like an encyclopedia article, rather than just class notes for his high school newsletter. Ma^t_chups 12:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article should definitely be improved by editing it, using the sources that are currently listed as external links and the ones linked above. But that the article in its current state requires clean up is not a reason for deletion. Rlendog (talk) 01:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whether he meets any subject guidelines or not, he clearly meets and exceeds our basic notability standards. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple independent sources. Since the sources exist, WP:RUBBISH says an article can be cleaned up and those sources can be added to improve the article. Since there is enduring coverage of the subject over multiple years, this is more than just coverage of a news item and should not be deleted. —Bagumba (talk) 08:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm convinced this article meets WP:GNG per the numerous independent sources. The only delete vote so far just wants it gone because the article needs cleanup. So? Fix it. The article needs expansion with the multiple sources integrated into the article, not deletion. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 15:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.